1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does quantum entanglement allow instantaneous information transfer?

« on: 25/04/2018 22:23:07 »

Yes, so what we call particles are fields that behave in a certain way, they interfere, interact,  create waves and have an identity as a individual system. There is another thing I was wondering. They say the fields collapse to a single definite position and in QM for a particle when we apply the position operator we get a single position. In my opinion it is not quite like that. Here is some basic description. There is no way of designing some apparatus to determine an exact position. So I would say the fields simply interact with each other during a collapse, say a photon is absorbed by an electron. The photon field continues further as embeded into the electron field. This hapens at a moment of time an throughout all the space the fields occupied(which is the whole universe). Hence there is no definite position of interaction. When we detect something those positions are regions where the fields are stronger. And there is also the problem of time. How does it happen, at a single moment of time? This is another issue in my opinion.
Thanks

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does quantum entanglement allow instantaneous information transfer?

« on: 12/04/2018 14:10:25 »

As I understand it, quantum entanglement does not involve instantaneous information transfer.

It is very hard to give examples that are both accurate to QM and relatable to our experiences, but the common comparison is this:

Two twin brothers want to share their birthday cake, but they are both on vacation in different places. Their mother cuts the cake with a single slice and sends each piece to one of her sons. Until opening the package, neither son knows whether the cut was made evenly, or if the other twin got a larger or smaller piece. It doesn't matter how far away the twins are, when one opens his package to see 60% of a cake, he instantly knows that his brother will be disappointed.

This example is representative of most QM entanglement sort of experiments in that an operation (cutting of the cake) is done that produces two complimentary things (slices of cake), which are then sent mailed) different ways such that information about them is unknown until the thing is actively inspected (package opened). The example falls short of QM reality because the outcome (who got how much cake) is determined by the mother (and she knows)--and even if some randomization is introduced, it still doesn't quite capture the nature of superposition... but it works well enough.

There is nothing magic about the instantaneity here. Each twin already has the knowledge that the cake slices will together add to one cake, and then presented with one slice, has all the information required to know the size of the other slice. This breaks down if their assumption is invalid (maybe mom ate a piece too). It is also important to remember that it still took time to send the cake to each of the twins, so the information sent from mom to son is constrained by the speed of light. That each son gains insight into both packages at the same time is only a matter of logic, not physics.

This example is classical an of course it makes sense. However, this implies a single hidden variable...quantum mechanics doesn't. That's the difference.
In the classical example, we have slice A and B. The kid can look and it test is wether it is A and make another test to see if it is B. Suppose it is A. The kid makes a test to see if it is B and yields negative. And if it tests fot A gets positive. So the hidden variables are Tested A + / tested B - and for the other pair the opposite signs. So the hidden variable can be a matrix that can have two options  (+,-) or (-,+), which can be represented by 0 or 1, so a single boolean variable, for a classical particle you would need an infinity (in quantum you need none ). That's classical.
Now in quantum the state is not defined until a measurement is done. So it seems an instantaneous action at distance. Even with the detection of a single particle emmited by a source, the particle is everywhere until measured then it disappears from all positions and reveals itself on a single one. In other words a measurement here makes the particle appear here and vanish from all other superpositions. But at least what is clear is that there unlike particle travel as waves, the collapse of a quantum field does not involve waves or signals traveling. I don't get it. I think something is wrong either with relativity or QM, if not with both.

3

New Theories / Does true motion exist?

« on: 03/08/2017 09:00:49 »

We know light and massive particles behave like waves. Like all waves, the amplitudes don't travel along the motion axis but they are propagated. This property is specific to all waves whether mechanical or electromagnetic.The variation electromagnetic field amplitudes creates a wave that advances forward, but there is nothing really moving from one place to another. These waves can also transfer energy to massive particles. The energy is transmitted in fixed amounts by waves packets that apparently are superposition of waves of different frequencies. But these wave packets still propagate. In QFT there are fields associated with all particles. These field work similarly to the electromagnetic and the same thing happens to these particles. They don't move as rigid object motion is defined, but propagate as waves.
There are several implications  I think are important.
 For a rigid body motion, the object preserves its identity. When travelling from point A to B it is the same object whereas waves can maintain their wave pattern, frequency spectrum, polarization similarly but it's not the same thing.
A rigid body has inertia and maintains its velocity if isolated(no forces acting on it). For EM waves the propagation velocity doesn't depend on amplitudes and it is always constant. I don't know how QFT explains a lower velocity propagation for other particles, but for constant propagation velocity waves, according to my hypothesis you can only have velocity variations for wavefronts where local momentum vector of the waves don't point to the direction of motion but at an angle as in OAM beams.
Another problem is relativity. If the world consists of these waves, we only have relative velocities between wave packets. I don't think we can apply relativity if there is no true motion.
Relativity works is because the mathematical model matches our observations, but what is the meaning of it in this context?

4

New Theories / Re: What is gravity?

« on: 06/04/2017 06:21:49 »

Would be wrong to assume that C of gravity does not compress matter, but that instead assume that "C of gravity spins energy". Gravity spins the energy that matter? Therefore matter is not related directly with gravity.
  Matter being a final product of spinning C state of energy in function of gravity, and once again, the final product being recycled from outside in the very system that has created it?

I suppose c of gravity is the velocity of gravitational waves, which is the same value c. This velocity spins energy?

5

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 14/12/2016 17:43:05 »

Thank you.
Yes, AF can only be defined as an ideal thing but I don't know if we can find an object that is at rest in AF. Perhaps there is a way, if you can find one way speed of light.

There are no straight lines in real life, I agree. Straight line trajectory are imaginary. If everything is made of fileds and waves,  perfect lines are only illusions.

6

New Theories / Re: One way speed of light

« on: 13/12/2016 12:51:28 »

You are right. What they got is seems to be a speed difference that is measured from an orbiting station frame not from a station fixed to earth. The orbiting station sees the Earth surface moving at v and obviously will measure a speed difference between the Earth surface and c but a station on Earth will not notice the difference according to SR.

7

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 12/12/2016 21:40:25 »

The point of any description of relativity observations has to begin with what causes electrons to move. Then we can have a clue to the physical description of photons.

I've already described how they move. Fundamental wave that it is made of travels at c the same way as EM waves. Interactions with other waves makes them to change shape (compress or extend the helix) and thus the forward speed changes. What makes photons to move makes electrons to move.

   Regarding fields other than electro-magnetic, since they can interact with electro-magnetic filed through gravitational effects it means that probably they are also electro-magnetic. This explains the relativistic mass effects that apply to all particles.

Like Nikola Tesla said  – "Everything is the Light".

8

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 09/12/2016 22:56:17 »

There is another challenge for this model that is vital for it to work.
Although relativistic mass is rarely considered in scientific research, there is a very important phenomenon apparently experimentally confirmed. When two photons are sent in parallel there seems to be no gravity effect between them. However when sent antiparallel, the gravity effect becomes present(see Tollman experiment).
This can be explained by relativity in a way. If using near zero mass hypothetical particles the GR would predict the same thing. This means it must be true for photons and it is indeed since there is evidence for it.
In a comoving reference frame particles experience no relativistic mass increase and no additional gravity. When antiparallel the effect is doubled for a particle.
My model seems to be able to handle this. Since it says fermions like the electrons are orbital momentum unbalanced EM , these special kind of waves interact by gravity only when there is relative motion in the absolute space. When at rest they orbit around the centre and this means they are in motion relative to other objects arround and induce gravity effects.

The thing that makes electrons orbiting around an imaginary centre can be either an imbalance in a EM wave or the gravitational effect for opposite direction waves (orbiting motion can enable this). The gravitational effects is more likely but it need to be confirmed mathematically.

It becomes clear that gravity is not just a simple force toward an object that has mass nor a spacetime curvature around mass but a more complex field  with a particular behavior. This field can be triggered by any particle but the way it is created  depends on the relative speed between the particles.

9

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 29/11/2016 16:23:54 »

     GoC, An absolute space works better with the idea of an aether. My new idea does not necessarily exclude aether but as Relativity says it makes it unnecessary. The mechanics seem straight forward, nothing magical. My previous idea was more exotic but unfortunately I can't make it work.
Particle spin is only expressed as orbital motion, hence angular momentum is generated. Unidirectional propagation like light only has orientation (polarisation) not angular momentum.
 The c as a speed limit in absolute space works because c is the propagating speed  of all fields. All fields move at a constant speed, only orbital trajectories make the appear like slowed down.
In absolute space if an object has 0.5c along x axis and sends an wave in the direction of motion, the absolute velocity difference will be 0.5c. However the clocks that move with the object will tick slower and will measure c in their co-moving reference frame. The absolute spacetime explain the mechanics without contradicting relativity.

     You keep saying about "Spin Ether at c (moving electrons)". I don't know what you mean. If a point particle spins, creating a rotating filed you can define the angular velocity in revolution per second for example. C is not about angular velocity but about motion in a straight line (on a small enough portion of space dx).

10

New Theories / Re: Creationism?

« on: 23/11/2016 15:30:09 »

Creationism is a possibility examined by scientists although only hypothesis can be made.
Science can understand religion as is.
Religion doesn't understand science.

11

General Science / Re: Is there any scientific evidence for an afterlife?

« on: 08/11/2016 11:03:57 »

There are some clues suggesting there is no life after death. It is actually about the consciousness because that is what we are interested in. When there is slight a brain damage or a neuronal malfunction the person consciousness seems to be affected, sometimes it doesn't semm to be the same person anymore. I think consciousnesses can be gradually lost.
Also, when sensors information is lost, like, vision, touch etc, the person eventually would not be able to distinguish between dream an reality. Hypothetically a consciousness as a separate entity without receiving any input from the outside world (through sensors) it will probably go crazy. All memories would fade away in time, until everything dissapears. It would be the worst nightmare.

I don't see any way of full consciousness to survive without a brain. I think all organs functions and all sensors are required to create a complete consciousness. Even if the consciousness survives as an entity (which is impossible) it will alter significantly.

The  consciousness somehow like a program in a computer. The program can't run if you power the computer off. Technically the neurons send signals to each other. If you destroy the neurological network the signals dissapear.
These are only, non specialist, personal opinions.

12

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 24/10/2016 22:47:00 »

just saying the word photon brings a particle to mind. Visual nm for the wave, the electron jumps from one state to another rotationally disturbing the spin state of c particles. The rotation and length from the rest state creates the wave where 180 degrees one side is a push forward and the other side a pull backward. This wave front is propagated in all directions. the 180 degree shell is perfectly opposite so it is considered entangled when you determine the spin state of one side the other side is the opposite spin state. Entangled wave information does not travel faster than light. They are opposite spin states at the creation of light. Main stream is being tricked by their understanding of light being a particle.

It is only the wave on spin particles already at c that are disturbed and propagate that disturbance at c until the pattern is dissipated by mass and detected as work energy.

The spin state at the creation of light was disproved by Bell' Theorem, although that might require more evidence.
The concept of spin for c particles is not very clear to me. However since my concept includes point entities that have a set of properties, the possibility that one of them could be spin, can be analyzed.
The values of some properties can be stored as spin.
If your c particles spin, do you mean they also have mass ?
My space point entities also can have some infinitesimal mass, but the mass is more like their own existence not a property. It is for equivalence purposes with other theories.

P.s. The angular momentum of point particles is not very clear either. If there are infinitesimal radius and mass then there will be an infinitesimal angular momentum.

13

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 14/10/2016 00:31:37 »

 

As you yourself said, "energy shouldbe of space, not mass", there is only one type of energy correct, different wavelengthts, different process, but you agree that there is only one "source of energy", don't you?

 I reading as much as I can to fix the wholes on this alternative perspective, that I trully believe will achieve nothing, but seems logical to explore all possibilities...

 Resuming into a question, do you believe on the possibilitie that "photon" is a temporary contruction of the aether, proving its existence, that are created and dismissed wherever energy is not traveling, occuring?

For gravity, electric and magnetic field, I believe there is only one source. A disturbance in either, electric or magnetic field can create everything. However, I don't know much about the strong force and weak force, only the basics.

Second question: I think, based on my model, that the energy is always traveling but, yes, photons should be a creation of the aether.

An example can be the big bang. To create the disturbance you first need the space (aether). This space initially is a singularity, infinitely small (again  not zero), then you can create a disturbance in the magnetic field as a potential energy. Space itself cannot expand by itself because it is own gravitational effect. The disturbance should make space dilate. Travelling waves, within this space should be at a speed proportional with space density. Now I just realized there is another weird problem. The space singularity must be infinitely big. If it isn't then  you can't create the disturbance because it reaches the space limit before you release it. Hence, the potential energy of space is infinitely big. You need to make the expansion happen, so, probably you need again infinitely big energy the same value and then release it. This example is not clear to me actually, but I'll think about it.

14

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 10/10/2016 08:42:12 »

....
  I can relate with your perspective, specialy with "the time of transfering information from A to B is fixed (adrifting), not the speed (does not posses acceleration on it's own)...
 Intristing point of view, can you tell me, "I'll consider the awnser only as especulation", the question is, do you consider that, the light, has a speed when in reference to space, if so, witch number would describle this speed of light, our current one, or if not so, to be something (concept) totaly different from "speed of light"?

I realize, my concept is wrong because all observers will agree on the same time everywhere and we know that it is not the case.

15

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 09/10/2016 16:23:23 »

Each point in space has some properties. Mass corresponds to high density of space. Properties can be transfered to the next point. The speed of transfer between two adjiacent points is alwys the same and it is c. The time of transfer is infinitely small. c=dx/dt. A universal time cannot be set because we don't know what density of space to refer to.

I think, I need to change the definition here. I had something else in my mind. The time of transfering information from one point to next one is fixed, not the speed.

16

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 09/10/2016 16:11:49 »

    ... So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.

    Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.

     Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.

My model  shows that local time relates to local c. For an object, Locally c0= dx0/dt0; but for an object close to a bigger mass space is shrinked and also locally, c1=dx1/dt1. dx1<dx2. Always dt0=dt1. Then c1<c0. However they define as c0 and c1 their own causality speed and cannot be exceeded locally.

The particles of space are not quite particles because their motion is limited by how much space stretches and contracts. The source of relativity is the space itself and the time between two adjiant points which is fixed but cannot be measured since it is infinitely small.